s3mh Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 The variance application is up on the DRC system website. I stink at the internet and have no clue how to post it here. Hopefully, someone else will be able to do that. As noted above, it is Michael Hsu. It looks like a great project with a nice layout that puts the shops fronting the streets and minimizes the parking lots. The bungalow next to the one that got demoed on Heights and 7th is going to be a restaurant space. It will be great to have a restaurant in that space and sit out front, watching people go up and down the bike path on 7th and running trail on Heights. I was up at Donovan this weekend when it was packed with kids. I only saw maybe three cars parked on 7th that were clearly not construction workers from the Trammel Crowe site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsPeep Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Why is a parking variance warranted? Why should the public carry the burden for this developer? I drove by 5 times this weekend and all the parking spaces were occupied except one or two each time.And why are they so focused on preserving clearly nonhistoric noncontributing and unappealing buildings? Are they getting grandfathered on some requirements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I like the site plan. The head-in parking on 7th street makes sense. I do hope they plant some trees next to the trail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Why should the public be stuck with a suburban strip mall (the inevitable outcome if no variance is granted for parking) just because a small handful of residents living near the proposed development have buyer's remorse over their decision to buy a residence in close proximity to a commercial corridor? I have my kids at Donovan several times a week. I am far enough away that I will usually have to drive. I have never once had to park west of Heights Blvd. Never. Anyone using the hike and bike trail can park on a dozen different streets to have access. Most everyone in the Heights who uses the trail will just . . . hike and bike to it. The only real loss is for the people living nearby who will now have people parking in front of their houses. See the first sentence above. The buildings they are saving are from 1940. The buildings would probably be contributing if in a historic district (only the bungalow is in a historic district). Much of the original architecture has been lost, but the architect has done a nice job of reimagining the space into something open and attractive with a nice street presence. And they are also using the nice bungalow on Heights. Frankly, this development is the best thing to happen on Yale St. since perhaps 1920. It is so much better than a strip mall, townhome cluster or big box apartment complex that it is well worth it to have a few extra parked cars on the street here and than. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Why is a parking variance warranted?Why should the public carry the burden for this developer?I drove by 5 times this weekend and all the parking spaces were occupied except one or two each time.And why are they so focused on preserving clearly nonhistoric noncontributing and unappealing buildings? Are they getting grandfathered on some requirements?Gorgeous house available in Katy. No parking issues. http://swamplot.com/old-katy-home-juices-up-the-joint-300k/2015-01-30/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Gorgeous house available in Katy. No parking issues. http://swamplot.com/old-katy-home-juices-up-the-joint-300k/2015-01-30/ you should buy it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsPeep Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I think I am hearing you say that the hundreds of people who have voiced their oppositions to the variance should move to Katy! The 30 people who live on that block should move too! And the thousands of people who currently use the parking at that location to access public amenities should move! Of course I should move because I do not want to live in Montrose or Midtown (that's why I invested in the Heights!). And in your mind all those people moving sounds better than denying the variance for which there is no public purpose to support subsidizing the developers' parking? I sure hope you don't work for the Planning Department because you would be abusing your discretion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I use the MKT trail about every weekend, and very rarely see people use the head-in spaces in order to use the trail or to go to Donovan Park, where there is almost always closer parking available w/o having to cross Heights Blvd. (There's an entrance to the park on Harvard, as well.) I haven't heard anyone throwing shade at Urban Jungle, whose customers are the largest users of those head-in spaces (at least on weekends), and which has, as far as I can tell, approximately zero off-street parking. That said, at peak demand times, which is to say weekend evenings, one very rarely sees a high proportion of those spaces occupied. However, if this is built as designed, people WILL park on neighboring streets. Unlike, say, Coltivare, however, of the dozens of on-street spaces within a few blocks of here, the majority do not front residences. I'm even OK with parallel parking along Yale (which is perfectly legal currently), as it will put Yale in the same situation of the other North-South arteries in the Heights (Heights Blvd & Studewood) as having one travel lane in each direction. Currently the limit on Heights is 35 mph, but people routinely drive 20. On Yale the limit is 30 mph, and people routinely drive 50. Some parking in the right lane might calm traffic a bit, without really increasing traffic, since the real bottleneck is the light at I-10. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 I think I am hearing you say that the hundreds of people who have voiced their oppositions to the variance should move to Katy! The 30 people who live on that block should move too! And the thousands of people who currently use the parking at that location to access public amenities should move! Of course I should move because I do not want to live in Montrose or Midtown (that's why I invested in the Heights!). And in your mind all those people moving sounds better than denying the variance for which there is no public purpose to support subsidizing the developers' parking? I sure hope you don't work for the Planning Department because you would be abusing your discretion! The people who live on that block should welcome a wonderful new development and the luxury of being able to live in a single family house and be able to walk out their front door and down the street to great restaurants and shops. If they are so disgusted by having people use the public parking in front of their homes, they should at least wait until the development is finished before moving to Katy because their property values will get a significant bump if the development goes through as planned. Right now, the burdens of power transformers, I-10 noise and industrial buildings weigh heavily on residential real estate around the area of the development. Put in a world class development and you will see the benefits quickly outweigh the burdens. If you did not want to have parking issues around your house, you should have never moved near the two busiest roads in the Heights. I made sure I was a few blocks from the commercial corridors in the Heights because I wanted a quiet street more than I wanted to be near restaurants and shops. Of course, you don't have to move to Katy. You can just move to one of the hundreds of blocks in the Heights that are not affected by commercial/retail development. Just because you made a bad decision on what part of the Heights to buy a home does not mean you get to suppress development that is beneficial to the rest of us. I won't even go into how silly it is to claim that there are thousands of people who use a few dozen parking spaces. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowndes Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The people who live on that block should welcome a wonderful new development and the luxury of being able to live in a single family house and be able to walk out their front door and down the street to great restaurants and shops. If they are so disgusted by having people use the public parking in front of their homes, they should at least wait until the development is finished before moving to Katy because their property values will get a significant bump if the development goes through as planned. Right now, the burdens of power transformers, I-10 noise and industrial buildings weigh heavily on residential real estate around the area of the development. Put in a world class development and you will see the benefits quickly outweigh the burdens.If you did not want to have parking issues around your house, you should have never moved near the two busiest roads in the Heights. I made sure I was a few blocks from the commercial corridors in the Heights because I wanted a quiet street more than I wanted to be near restaurants and shops. Of course, you don't have to move to Katy. You can just move to one of the hundreds of blocks in the Heights that are not affected by commercial/retail development. Just because you made a bad decision on what part of the Heights to buy a home does not mean you get to suppress development that is beneficial to the rest of us.I won't even go into how silly it is to claim that there are thousands of people who use a few dozen parking spaces. I agree, I am a bit surprised by some of the backlash against the project (although my guess is the supporters would vastly outnumber the opposers but the opposition is always the loudest). The reason I moved to the Heights was because I wanted to live in a dense, urban walkable neighborhood and the Heights offered what we were looking for. I am moving to this area of the Heights and certainly hope the project goes forward as planned. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerloop Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The reason I moved to the Heights was because I wanted to live in a dense, urban walkable neighborhood and the Heights offered what we were looking for. Exactly. I too hope this project, and others like it, continue to be built in the Heights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstigall Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (that's why I invested in the Heights!). If you want your investment to grow you should be supportive of this plan. If the heights becomes another strip mall centric Katy then your 900sqft bungalow won't net you as much profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullMan008 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 If you want your investment to grow you should be supportive of this plan. If the heights becomes another strip mall centric Katy then your 900sqft bungalow won't net you as much profit. SMH. You dont get it. Some people have roots here and its folks who have these types of comments, 'your 900sqft bungalow', that are ruining it. Ha. You come off so negative on this and ND site. I'm all for new developement but this us and them is ridiculous. I've lived here all of my life, so you can build whatever you want. This will never erase the memories I have of this place. Lets see these houses after our next big hurricane. I grew up in a bungalow and those houses are built to last. Be nice behind your keyboard son. P.S. I like to VISIT Katy, its changed so much over the last 30 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverJK Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I welcome this development. That parking is hardly ever used (I regularly take my kid to play in the park there, and i've never had to park west of Heights, normally I'm able to park right next to the park) and the site plan looks pretty interesting. Interesting sites typically get interesting businesses, as cookie cutter corporate business tend to shy away in favor of suburban strip centers (which is what will happen here if no variance is provided). I do think that if the parking variance is granted, there should be some stipulations to ensure we get something like the rendering, and they don't pull the ole rope a dope on us and build a crappy strip center. I'm hoping for sushi/bagel/indian food, just one of those would be a giant victory to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 I agree, I am a bit surprised by some of the backlash against the project (although my guess is the supporters would vastly outnumber the opposers but the opposition is always the loudest). The reason I moved to the Heights was because I wanted to live in a dense, urban walkable neighborhood and the Heights offered what we were looking for. I am moving to this area of the Heights and certainly hope the project goes forward as planned. There are real issues with parking, but they are not the fault of the businesses moving into the area. People do park like idiots when they park in the neighborhoods for places like Bistro Zelko, Coltivare, Good Dog, etc. Most of the streets affected can only handle parking on one side of the street, but people park on both sides, making it impossible for emergency vehicles to get through and for some residents to get out of their driveways. And some people are just dumb enough to park right in front of someone's driveway. But the City is supposed to help regulate and mitigate this issue. The parking minimums are not the answer, as evidenced by places like Montrose and Washington Ave. If the City curbed and guttered the affected streets that are still just 18' wide and have open drainage ditches and restricted parking to one side of the street, the impact would be limited to idiots parking illegally, which can be quickly remedied by one of the many tow trucks in the area that will happily whisk a violator off to a very expensive involuntary parking lot complete with pitbulls rushing the gate when you come to bail out your car. But chasing off projects like this one and smaller efforts like Coltivare will just mean that we will only get strip center developments in the Heights but will still have the same parking problems. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstigall Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) . Edited February 4, 2015 by jstigall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I wouldn't hold my breath on the city adding curbs and gutters in narrow problem streets in the Heights anytime soon, especially with real serious problem areas of the same nature in the West End/Rice Military/Cottage Grove/Washington Corridor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 I wouldn't hold my breath on the city adding curbs and gutters in narrow problem streets in the Heights anytime soon, especially with real serious problem areas of the same nature in the West End/Rice Military/Cottage Grove/Washington Corridor Sadly, there are parts of town that have it much worse than we do: http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/neighbors-appeal-for-help-with-crumbling-streets/ i also think the City resists curbs and gutters because they know that the open drainage ditches act as needed storm water detention. But setting aside the CIP mess, the City could put in restrictions on parking on both sides of the streets tomorrow if they wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 The set back variance was approved. The parking variance was tabled for two weeks for further research and discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsPeep Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Planning Commission UNANIMOUSLY denied the variance despite Planning Department staff support. Hopefully Planning Department staff will do a better job representing the city and not just developers now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The parking variance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsPeep Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes. Parking Variance - developer must provide all the required parking. Planning Commission UNANIMOUSLY denied the variance despite Planning Department staff support. Hopefully Planning Department staff will do a better job representing the city and not just developers now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Neighboring land owners hired an architect who designs suburban strip malls and Buccees to tell the planning commission how to develop an urban inner city project. His big point was that the developer could do structured parking. But he generally seemed to think that the development was too dense and would impede the right of way with door swings, etc. Translation: Strip malls should rule the city. One person claimed that the binder company on Heights Blvd had their property on the market, but the developer would not buy. I have not seen it on the market. But if it is and can be bought, the developer should buy it and use it for parking. Whatever happens, the property will get developed and there will be plenty of folks in the burbs who will come and block everyone's driveway along Heights Blvd. and will still park in the right of way along 7th, forcing the poor children of Houston to have to walk an entire city block to go to the park. Some argued that granting the variance would set a precedent so that developers would line up to get parking variances. The opposite precedent has been set. Any creative repurposing/infill project that relies on an urban redevelopment model cannot get done in Houston. Infill sites will either go residential (townhomes) or go with parking in front strip centers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsPeep Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Neighbors needed to hire an architect because PD staff was 1) so absurdly unsympathetic to the concerns of over 450 neighbors to follow its obligations of enforcing city code and 2) impotent and incompetent in comprehending and enforcing the city code. PD staff met with the developer repeatedly, and knows them well enough to sit with them throughout the presentation making comments about the neighbors. That doe snot look very impartial to me. The developer hired its expert to present the various request. Why shouldn't the neighbors that that seriously? A bunch of neighbors who saw a problem needed help to understand the mechanics of the code that PD could not understand themselves. If you watch the video, PD was so inept that they did not know their own street and bike plans for lights at that intersection! Total comedy. This morning my realtor friend confirmed the binder company property is quietly on the market. PD should do its job and expect the same level of scrutiny from now in for all parking issues in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowndes Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Neighboring land owners hired an architect who designs suburban strip malls and Buccees to tell the planning commission how to develop an urban inner city project. His big point was that the developer could do structured parking. But he generally seemed to think that the development was too dense and would impede the right of way with door swings, etc. Translation: Strip malls should rule the city. One person claimed that the binder company on Heights Blvd had their property on the market, but the developer would not buy. I have not seen it on the market. But if it is and can be bought, the developer should buy it and use it for parking. Whatever happens, the property will get developed and there will be plenty of folks in the burbs who will come and block everyone's driveway along Heights Blvd. and will still park in the right of way along 7th, forcing the poor children of Houston to have to walk an entire city block to go to the park. Some argued that granting the variance would set a precedent so that developers would line up to get parking variances. The opposite precedent has been set. Any creative repurposing/infill project that relies on an urban redevelopment model cannot get done in Houston. Infill sites will either go residential (townhomes) or go with parking in front strip centers. Agree 100%. Also, from what I have heard this "architect" and laughable "urban land planner" were all hired by commercial business' in the area who have a commercial interest in protecting the parking around there because they themselves don't have enough parking. And it is pretty funny (or really not) that a local business owner stands up and talks about a petition he got signed but himself doesn't provide enough parking for his customers. Sad really. I'm sure the developer will figure something out to still come up with an awesome development that benefits the community because listening to him speak you can tell he actually has a vested interest in the Heights and actually cares unlike most developers I've met. Hopefully, it will be so great that no amount of parking will be sufficient and the area gets flooded with street parking (and I live in the area). I chose to live in an urban area because I like to walk out of my house and see people milling about, etc. Houston is in such an exciting time of growth right now, especially inside the loop. Hopefully, this can help raise community awareness across the city as to how silly these parking minimums are and we can start working to get rid of them. I know I was not all that aware of their effects on good quality urban development before this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedmondson Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Was it residential neighbors who hired him or as he stated commercial neighbors? I find it unfair that the commercial developments here who provide almost no parking (and likely have some kind of grandfathered status) went out and hired someone who would say what ever they needed him to protect the public parking for their own use. What blew my mind was the number of people who spoke that bought in the just the last few years along Heights and were just outraged and so surprised that there is actually traffic on their street! OMG who could have predicted that!?!? And what is sad is they think that by denying this variance nobody will be parking in front of their house and it will "save the neighborhood" from this development. The development is still going to happen in one form or another, and people will still park in front of their house if the places are popular. My question is, won't the developer need a variance to maintain the public head in parking if they develop the area? Typically when you develop a property like that you redo the sidewalk, curb, driveways, etc and this parking might fall in those boundaries. So the net result of denying this variance could be a large reduction in public parking in the area. I can see why they denied the variance because as presented because the hardship was created by themselves. Since they are tearing down that warehouse they have the option to build it back much smaller and thus provide the parking on site for the whole development. So an option that I can see is to come back and present all the parcels separate and have the warehouse provide all the required on site parking. That way the bungalow and the other buildings will have a legitimate undue hardship because the only alternative would be to tear them down completely. That is the reason staff ultimately supported the variance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Ugh, Houston. One step forward, two steps back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownproud Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) whose interests should the City promote--the local residents immediately surrounding the proposed project, or those of the greater area/city as a whole? i'm sure one's point of view depends almost entirely on the group in which you fall. in any event, seems pretty clear that the city decided to pander to the immediate neighbors this time. if i were the developer, i would be talking to Smoochies to see about opening a second store directly in the heights. Edited February 20, 2015 by htownproud 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanith27 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Maybe building a concrete parking lot will prove once and for all that parking on the streets will still happen. With any luck the nimby's will learn that lesson and be less likely to fight the next fight knowing regardless of what they do there will still be cars on their street. I am continually amused at the now urban legend status created by the Coltivare parking issues and the belief that some have that the existence of their garden (instead of a parking lot) is creating the parking issues.....or the false belief that Coltivare has less parking than the city requires. Its not. Its Billy Bob and Buffy Sue and all their friends that show up in separate vehicles for dinner. That's the Houston mentality unfortunately. Eventually parking lot mentality will lose....capitalism almost guarantees it....but I fear that concrete pours are inevitable during this process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Other people parking on the street in front of you house is just a fact of life inside the loop (except in River Oaks, I guess). That's why they're called public streets. I only get annoyed when someone either 1) blocks my driveway or 2) parks dead square in the middle of what would otherwise be two parking places. #2) happens a LOT, in neighborhoods and downtown. It's one of those things that causes me to contemplate trying to invent a vaporizing death ray. I really liked the Heights better when there weren't as many entitled twits living there. Edited February 20, 2015 by mollusk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.